1. According to the records on the grounds of Defendant C’s appeal, Defendant C appealed appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and only asserted the illegality of sentencing on the grounds of appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the lower court erred by mistake of facts or by misunderstanding of legal principles is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the deliberation of the sentencing grounds is ultimately unfair.

Therefore, under Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal may be filed only for a case on which death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years has been pronounced. As such, in the instant case where Defendant C was sentenced to a more minor punishment, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant E, the argument that the lower court erred by deviating from or abusing the scope of discretion in sentencing or by failing to deliberate on the grounds of sentencing constitutes an unfair argument in sentencing.

Therefore, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal may be filed only for a case on which death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years has been pronounced. As such, in this case where Defendant E was sentenced to minor punishment, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

3. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of Defendant F’s appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court found Defendant F guilty of violating the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse among the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant F, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.